Albers v. City of St. Louis

Citation268 Mo. 349,188 S.W. 83
Decision Date02 June 1916
Docket NumberNo. 17835.,17835.
PartiesALBERS v. CITY OF ST. LOUIS.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Missouri

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; J. Hugo Grimm, Judge.

Suit by Frank Albers against the City of St. Louis. From a decree for respondent, complainant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

William L. Bohnenkamp and Benjamin H. Charles, both of St. Louis, for appellant. Charles H. Daues and Truman P. Young, both of St. Louis, for respondent.

BROWN, C.

This is a suit for the cancellation of certain special tax bills against the plaintiff's land in the city of St. Louis, the apparent lien of which is alleged to be a cloud upon the title. The tax bills were issued against seven parcels of land described in the petition, to the aggregate amount of $469.40, and are founded upon a special assessment of benefits to said land in a proceeding for the widening of Bircher street from Euclid avenue to Florissant avenue in said city from 60 feet, its original width, to 200 feet, under ordinances which changed its name to Kingshighway Northeast. None of the land fronted or bordered upon said street, which was outside the business district, and upon which there was little commercial traffic. A general demurrer was sustained to the petition, and the plaintiff declined to plead further. Final judgment for defendant was entered, from which this appeal is taken.

The petition states, in addition to these general facts, that the defendant, by authority of a vote of the people of said city, duly authorized and issued its negotiable bonds in the sum of $500,000, to be exclusively devoted to the establishing, opening, and construction of Kingshighway boulevard, to meet that portion of the cost and expense which by law the defendant was required to pay, and that the proceeds of said bonds were paid into the treasury of the city; that thereupon the defendant ordained and passed a certain ordinance numbered 22,948, entitled:

"An ordinance to change present Bircher street from Euclid avenue to Florissant avenue into a boulevard, to be known as `Kingshighway Northeast,' and to widen said boulevard, and to regulate the use of said boulevard, and to provide penalties for violating the provisions of this ordinance."

Section 1 provided:

"Bircher street from Euclid avenue to Florissant avenue, in the city of St. Louis, Missouri, is hereby changed into a boulevard to be known as `Kingshighway Northeast.'"

Section 2 provided that said boulevard, "Kingshighway Northeast," be widened to include certain parcels of land described, making its width 200 feet. It further provided that the present Bircher street from Euclid avenue to Marcus avenue should be "a service roadway, for general lawful purposes of public travel," and that from Marcus avenue to Florissant avenue there should be "service roadways 30 feet wide for general lawful purposes of public travel," and "a pleasure driveway, separated from said service roadways by space for planting trees and shrubbery, and constructing sidewalks in a manner hereafter to be provided for by the board of public improvements," and that on the part of the boulevard restricted to pleasure driving, it should be unlawful to do, or cause to be done, any other than pleasure driving, or to use the same for certain general traffic, set out at length in the ordinance. There were also other traffic restrictions unnecessary to mention. It also stated that this ordinance was a part of a general scheme for the establishment of a boulevard extending northwardly and southwardly almost the entire length of the city; that although the proceeds of the sale of the $500,000 of bonds were lawfully applicable to the payment of the benefits which the defendant should be required to pay for the widening and opening of said Kingshighway as a boulevard and for no other purpose, a large part of it was used by defendant for other purposes, and no portion was applied to the opening as a boulevard and widening of Bircher street, although that was a part of the boulevard for the establishment and opening of which the said bonds were voted, issued, and sold; that the proceeds of the bonds having been exhausted without the expenditure of any part thereof to pay the benefit assessment for which the city might be liable in the opening of that part of Kingshighway boulevard which included Bircher street, the defendant city, for the purpose of raising the funds therefor by assessment against a benefit district to be formed for that purpose under the guise of the subterfuge that this part of the Kingshighway boulevard was a common street and not a boulevard within the meaning of its charter, passed on March 16, 1909, Ordinance No. 24,224 entitled:

"An ordinance to repeal ordinance number twenty-two thousand nine hundred and forty-eight, entitled `An ordinance to change present Bircher street from Euclid avenue to Florissant avenue into a boulevard, to be known as "Kingshighway Northeast," and to widen said boulevard and to regulate the use of said boulevard, and to provide penalties for violating the provisions of this ordinance,' approved March twenty-seven, nineteen hundred and seven, and to enact in lieu thereof, an ordinance to change the name of Bircher street from Euclid avenue to Florissant avenue to `Kingshighway Northeast,' and to establish, open and widen said Kingshighway Northeast from Euclid avenue to Florissant avenue."

The first section repealed the former ordinance and the second is as follows:

"Bircher street from Euclid avenue to Florissant avenue is hereby changed to `Kingshighway Northeast.'"

Section 3 establishes the boundary of Kingshighway Northeast practically the same as the boulevard of the same name established by ordinance No. 22,948, and thereupon a proceeding was begun to condemn the land to be taken and establish the benefit district upon which to assess the cost substantially as provided by the charter and ordinances of the city. The lands of plaintiff were included in this assessment. That the petition was sufficient in form and detail to present the questions which we shall notice in this opinion is not questioned by the parties in brief or argument.

1. The most important of these questions relates to the validity of Ordinance No. 22,948, under which this assessment is made. The city must look to its charter for its power to levy its tax, and must abide by the limitations upon those powers which are therein expressed. It is presented in this case by the fact that the Legislature, in conferring upon it its charter powers, has authorized it to establish and open "boulevards," but has, in the same section (section 1, art. 6) provided that the benefit district against which the cost of such opening may be assessed shall be limited to the property fronting or bordering on such boulevard, while in cases of the opening of streets and alleys which do not come within the description of boulevards, the benefit district...

To continue reading

Request your trial
31 cases
  • City of Clayton v. Nemours
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 6, 1942
    ... 164 S.W.2d 935 ... CITY OF CLAYTON, (PLAINTIFF), APPELLANT, ... PAUL R. NEMOURS, (DEFENDANT), RESPONDENT ... No. 26134 ... St. Louis Court of Appeals, Missouri ... Opinion filed October 6, 1942 ... Motion for rehearing overruled October 20, 1942 ... Petition for Writ of ... ...
  • Hammett v. Kansas City
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • May 4, 1943
    ... ... I, Sec. 1 and Art. XII, Secs. 371 and 383; Viquesney v. Kansas City, 305 Mo. 488; Ex parte Tarling, 241 S.W. 929; Hill v. St. Louis, 159 Mo. 159, 60 S.W. 116. (2) An ordinance or statute may validly require the payment of property taxes as a condition precedent to the issuance of ... (2d) 1017; Kansas City v. J.I. Case Threshing Machine Co., 337 Mo. 913, 87 S.W. (2d) 195; City of West Plains v. Nolan, 112 S.W. (2d) 79; Albers v. St. Louis, 268 Mo. 349, 188 S.W. 83; R.S. 1939, secs. 7443, 7444; St. Louis v. J.E. Kaime & Brother, 180 Mo. 309, 79 S.W. 140; Taylor v. Dimmitt, ... ...
  • City of St. Louis v. Senter Comm. Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1935
    ... ... St. Louis v. Cruikshank, 16 Mo. App. 495. In the matter of assessing benefits, the commissioners, as well as the court, in passing upon exceptions, do not act judicially, but are agents of the city (the taxing authority) in the assessment of taxes. Schwab v. St. Louis, 310 Mo. 116; Albers v. St. Louis, 268 Mo. 349. A municipal corporation can levy no taxes, general or special, upon the inhabitants or their property, unless the power be plainly and unmistakably conferred. Boatmen's Bank v. Sample Realty Co., 202 Mo. App. 57; Chicago v. Law, 144 Ill. 506, 33 N.E. 857. (2) The ... ...
  • City of St. Louis v. Senter Com'n Co.
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • June 5, 1935
    ... ... Mo.App. 495. In the matter of assessing benefits, the ... commissioners, as well as the court, in passing upon ... exceptions, do not act judicially, but are agents of the city ... (the taxing authority) in the assessment of taxes. Schwab ... v. St. Louis, 310 Mo. 116; Albers v. St. Louis, ... 268 Mo. 349. A municipal corporation can levy no taxes, ... general or special, upon the inhabitants or their property, ... unless the power be plainly and unmistakably conferred ... Boatmen's Bank v. Sample Realty Co., 202 Mo.App ... 57; Chicago v. Law, 144 Ill. 506, ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT